Pages

Welcome to London Civic Watch

"Ever wonder if City Council is as contentious and chaotic as it is sometimes portrayed? Here you can get a progressive perspective on some of the issues from someone who spent four years in the trenches. Totally unbiased, though!Feel free to comment but keep it respectful, just like they do at council."

Monday, February 3, 2014

Let the games begin

Let the games begin. Football in East Rutherford, New
Jersey, Olympics in Sochi, Russia, municipal elections in London Ontario.

Although there are nearly nine months to go for the last of
these, the posturing has already begun. It’s evident at council and in the
media: councillors becoming surprisingly reasonable or outrageous, voting
unpredictable, alliances shifting, as incumbents and wannabees assess the
hurdles and opportunities on the way to October 27. And for at least one
councillor, the drop dead date may arrive even earlier as rumours of a spring election
swirl around Queen’s Park.

How else to explain what we have been witnessing over the
last few weeks? Armstrong vs Polhill. Orser vs Hubert. Branscombe vs her own
record on planning.

One thing that is clear is that the gang of eight, which
according to Dale Henderson ruled London, rule no more. The defection of Denise
Brown last year, followed by the Billy T’s fiasco and the legal bills that
followed, put paid to that. Now it’s everyman for himself and the devil take
the hindmost.

It’s taking its toll on our mayor. Throughout the past year
and a half he has shown remarkable resilience and resolve as he weathered the shutdown
of his multimillion dollar “charity”, the criminal charges involving fraud and violations
of public trust, the civil suit from a former employee, and the public scorn for
failure to fulfill his campaign promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.

But his state of
the city address at the mayor’s breakfast said it all. Lacklustre and
teleprompted, he recited a list of accomplishments most of which had been
initiated by a previous council: Dr. Oetker, the Fanshawe College downtown
campus, Skate Canada, the expanded airport, the yet to be built interchanges,
the Southwest Area Plan. But London was still the greatest city in the world;
all we have to do is believe. From what I could hear, the reception was muted
and polite. This is London, after all, and we are nothing if not polite. At
least, most of us.

At council, too, the dynamics have changed. With three years
under his belt as a councillor, Matt Brown has thrown down the gauntlet.
Although his announcement of seeking the mayor’s seat was somewhat
underwhelming, Brown’s new position as the challenger makes him a force to be
reckoned with. He is politically astute as well as ambitious. He
has been handed a golden opportunity long before he could have expected it. Who
would have thought that, after losing the nomination for the London West Liberal federal
riding association to Doug Ferguson three years ago, and settling for second prize as the
Ward 7 councillor, the forty-year-old schoolteacher would be a serious contender
for the mayoralty?

That’s muted some of the disparaging remarks of earlier
days, remarks like that of Joe Swan referring to Brown as “the junior
councillor”. After all, most of those on council hope to be re-elected. You don’t
want to unnecessarily denigrate someone you may be your leader in the near
future. Still, that didn’t stop Sandy White from complaining that Matt Brown was
staring at her while she was making remarks at the latest meeting of Strategic
Priorities and Policy dealing with the budget. Brown quickly apologized; he was
looking at her because he was paying attention to what she was saying, he
explained.

It’s a no win situation. Frequently, White complains because people,
including the mayor, aren’t paying attention to her when she speaks; when they do, she sees it as harassment.

But White herself has attempted to change her behaviour.
Although many of her comments at committee and council meetings still consist
of complaints and blandishments about and toward specific individuals, she
seems to have put more effort into following the debate and raising the odd
relevant question or observation. It just takes a lot of effort on the part of
the listener to decipher them and they are rarely followed by action except to
ask that people think about that or keep it in mind. Occasionally she will
request a report, no hurry. So nothing happens.

But White is worried. She won the 2010 election with a lot
of developer money. She has certainly delivered her own votes on planning
matters to developers, but that’s no guarantee. The last time there were six
contenders in total, five of whom were within a few hundred votes of each other.
This time around, Jared Zaifman, who lost to her by a mere 116 votes, is running
again. With a master’s degree in public administration, a respected developer
family, and an engaging manner, he is likely to give her a run for her money.

Interestingly, White and Zaifman share an address. But before anyone gets too
excited, it should be noted that the address is in the ward and for mailing
purposes only. Neither actually lives in the ward they hope to represent. But
then, since neither Dale Henderson or the mayor actually lives in the city,
that may seem like a small matter.

When it comes to planning and development, Joni Baechler’s
successful bid to chair the Planning and Environment Committee has certainly
had a positive impact on the functioning of that committee and the council. Gone
are the endless meetings and vague explanations for committee decisions. She
knows the rules and has read the reports. Not much escapes her. She recognizes
NIMBY when it appears before her and gives it short shrift.

And NIMBY did indeed rear its ugly head last week with some
blatant pandering for votes by Ward 2 Councillor Bill Armstrong who argued that
the development of a 14 unit single story apartment building to provide housing
for adults with special needs, inthis
case, adults with autism spectrum disorder. The building would be on Clarke
Road, a major arterial road at the east of the city. The building would be
separated from the residential neighbourhood by privacy fencing and
landscaping. The application had been there before but had been sent back for
some modifications. But the changes failed to appease the residents who
appeared at the public participation meeting. They wanted none of it. They were
all “fearful of what would happen to their community if this building was
allowed to go forward.”

Armstrong, who has been a strong proponent for affordable
housing in the past, began trying to pick apart the proposal. Who were these
people who were going to build this? Were they incorporated? Where would they
get the money? What about the water that would run off the roof of this
building? Every spring there were flooding problems.

Baechler pointed out that adequate drainage is part of the
site plan; it’s the same for every application. Water has to be retained on the
property. The means used vary, depending on the situation. As for who would own
and occupy the property, the city does not assess their financial means. A
reputable developer was making the application for the zoning amendment. Under
Baechler’s competent guidance, the committee supported the application unanimously.

But when the matter came to council, Armstrong made the same
arguments against the proposal. Curiously, although she did not speak against
the application, Branscombe too voted against the staff and the committee’s
recommendation. Curious because normally she and Baechler see eye to eye on
matters of development. Curious too because normally a councillor would not
vote against a committee recommendation without giving reason for doing so and
trying to convince others of her position. But an election may be just around
the corner.

Armstrong too has his concerns about the election looming
ahead. Bud Polhill’s son has run against him twice and he’s been catching up.
In 2010, Steve Polhill lost to him by exactly 300 votes; that’s too close for
comfort. A third contender had garnered just under 300 votes. But what if it is
to be just the two of them this time around? Or what if a third contender took
votes from him, rather than diluting Polhill’s votes?

The competition between them has been fierce, mostly taking
the form of hostility between Armstrong and Bud Polhill, the latter anxious to
ensure the Polhill legacy to the city. Most recently, we were treated to the
sight of the two fighting over the noise wall along the Veteran’s Memorial
Parkway, both desperately wanting it as an election offering to the residents
but neither willing to allow the other to take any credit. At the zero hour, Bud
Polhill declared that he couldn’t support what he had already agreed to because
the motion indicated a “wooden” fence and in his opinion, wooden fences turned
black and were ugly.

"Both councillors are well-intentioned," Joe Swan
observed as they were squabbling about this.

Maybe. But not toward each other.

And so it goes.
Intense competition does not tend to bring out the best in people. At week’s
end, we were treated to an account of events at a community meeting in the east
end, a task force established to deal with matters of safety.

It’s Ward 4, Stephen Orser territory. He’s been pushing for
cameras to deal with street crime. In his mind, it’s the only solution.
However, the task force was established to deal with issues of community safety
more generally and, in this initial meeting, the members were there to establish their terms of reference
and discuss their definitions of safety. At one of the tables was Ward 8 Councillor Paul Hubert.

What was he doing there, especially after Orser had told him
at a recent council meeting in no uncertain terms to “keep your snout out of my ward”?

Well, Hubert was doing his job. He’s the city council
representative on the Business Improvement Association, a position that should
have been assumed by Orser, but he refuses to take it. In fact, he has butted
head with members of the BIA and he thinks it should be disappeared.

A good friend of Orser’s was at the same table, a Fiona
Graham who has filed papers to run as a candidate in Ward 13 and who has a
reputation for being difficult. According to witnesses at the meeting,
including at the table. Graham wanted to hijack the agenda by talking about
getting rid of social service agencies in the area and installing CCTV. Hubert
reminded her that that topic would be appropriate later, right now they had to
focus on the task at hand. Apparently, Graham flounced off, went over to the
table where Orser was sitting, and together with another participant left the
room. No voices were raised, according to other participants.

Yet we were treated to an article in the Free Press the
following morning which reported that Graham was alleging that Hubert had
yelled at her and attacked her verbally. She wanted him removed from the task
force and made that request in a letter that Orser hand delivered to the city
clerk. It’s a mystery how the London Free Press learned of it.

5 comments:

civility please
said...

You tell us about Fiona Graham talking about Paul Hubert that "She wanted him removed from the task force and made that request in a letter that Orser hand delivered to the city clerk. It’s a mystery how the London Free Press learned of it." I know that your tongue is in your cheek when you say "It’s a mystery how the London Free Press learned of it"

We can all guess what little birdy made sure that this made it into the paper. Orser has been a nightmare. Give him more power and he may turn into our own little Rob Ford. They both have the same mixture of paranoia and a complete lack of class.

I am hoping that all of these egotistical, self serving, puffed up city Councillors, in otherwords, the Fontana Ate will be voted out this coming election and that includes the Mayor. All of them are nothing but a bunch of children who continue to argue and try to outdo each other and the mayor seems to be the one who, in some cases, helps instigate the arguments and then has no leadership to quell the agruments. City hall needs a mayor who can lead and one who is honest and does not have a questionable past or present. City Councillors need to be serving their constituents not themselves. As far as Steven Orser is concerned, I hope someone is running against him because I certainly do not want to see this classless person get in again. Too bad none of them actually listen to the comments Londoners make about them. It might just sink in how the people of London feel about them if they did listen.

According to the address listed on the City website's candidates list, Fiona Graham lives in Ward 4, Orser's ward. She is running in Ward 13, where I live.

I'd already been concerned about her being a friend of S. Orser, and didn't like her right wing, unsocial attitudes. The hard to believe accusation she's making and out-of-ward situation reinforce my first "no" to her as a representative I'd want.

I only have the www.london.ca website at the top of my head, not the more direct page. Sorry. I sure wish the site had more information posted about the candidates ... a questionnaire candidates had to fill in, right away when they register, that requires their answers to some specific questions (the sort they'll eventually be asked at meetings in September and October).